Talking Big 10 Expansion with The Daily Gopher
Whereas Hopkins Horn has been more open to the idea of Texas to the Big 10, I'm decidedly less keen on the idea, and at the least, highly skeptical of it happening any time soon.
SBN's outstanding Minnesota blog, The Daily Gopher, recently asked me to discuss the topic with them. Click through for my thoughts on the topic du jour.
about 2 years ago
Peter Bean
32 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
Actually, I'm a 3 as well . . .
. . . and I would have guessed you to be a 1, maybe a 2, on a 1-10 scale of likelihood.
It’s a good read, and I agree with pretty much everything you have to say. I think we fundamentally have a good-faith difference as to how long Texas would realistically be able to hold off making a move if things start going haywire, but I imagine we can explore our differences of opinion in further detail in the near future.
Convergence!
Yeah, I’m actually looking forward to our roundtable as well, because the more we chat, the clearer I understand where you stand and, as it turns out, we see this similarly.
Validate me!
You ain't hurt...
Random question re baseball
I instinctively think the answer is almost certainly “no,” but I want to throw the idea out there anyway.
Let’s say that events do conspire in such a way that the Big 10 does wind up being the conference which makes the most sense for Texas to move to, whether it’s announced this summer or several years from now.
I know that the topic of independence has been broached before, and there’s been a subtext of “football-only independence” versus “total independence.” However, given the weakness of Big 10 baseball (and, no, as a Big 10 advocate, I don’t have a good answer to that issue), would it be possible for Texas to be a “baseball-only independent”? Could a baseball power like UT make a run at the CWS from outside a conference structure? It seems to me that it might be easier to put together a respectable schedule as an independent in baseball than in other sports, given the number of top-tier programs spread out across multiple conferences which are a hell of a lot closer to Austin than the Big 10 schools.
(And why would the Big 10 agree to this? Give the BTN the same broadcast rights as if Texas were in the conference.)
FWIW,
when Rice was looking for a home after the breakup of the 16-team WAC, Wayne Graham felt that Rice could go it alone as an independent in baseball. He thought it would be harder than being in a conference and that the success the program was starting to have would be tougher to keep, but he did think it was a viable solution.
I say this only in the sense that if Rice thought they could do it 10 years ago, I have to imagine that it would be viable for Texas today.
It's doable . . . but scheduling has to be
awfully creative. Those mid- and late-season conference dates would be gone, so every weekend becomes a challenge to schedule. For every Notre Dame or Arizona you might get on the sked, there’d be a Louisiana Tech and a Northern Colorado interspersed. An indy could fill half the Big 12’s conference dates, but filling all of them would require a lot of balancing, some spending, and certainly the kind of travel (to the coasts or up north) we don’t currently have to deal with.
Folks with way-back memories might recall the excellent Pan American baseball teams from 1966 through the late ’80s . . . the landscape was different then, but Pan Am was an excellent independent. The problem was the Broncs would reach April 1 having played 50 games, then face some open weekends and end up playing just 15 more games before Memorial Day.
The Big Ten is an all-or-nothing league.
Even if it meant losing Texas, I can’t imagine they’d change their position as it’s this clear stance of total unity that has put them in their current position of power to begin with. It’s also for this reason that the Big Ten won’t look to give Texas a disproportionate share of revenue or allow Notre Dame to retain some sort of television deal. In fact, if the Big Ten is able to pull in another hockey school or two, look for them to become the first league with a hockey conference that parallels their other sports. It’s a stubborn position, but one that has proven to be a great stabilizer for the league over the years.
Less memorable than Sam Okey's Hawkeye career.
by Kyle McCann't on May 22, 2010 10:35 AM CDT up reply actions
Well said, PB, and concise and coherent
Even if contract years didn’t remain on the BCS and Big 12 pacts, waiting is the logical course. Honestly, I’m not at all sure the Big 11 member institutions would vote Texas in at this point. Given that voting for Texas makes it a Big 13, then there has to be a 14th, and scheduling and all the intersectional issues come into play awfully fast. The Big Ten may have empowered Delaney to investigate expansion; the members of the Big Ten have nothing to lose doing that, but they certainly aren’t bound to accept his recommendations.
Stepping away from the Big Ten angle, I think Texas sits in a much better position than many doomsayers realize. The Oklahoma schools, and Texas schools not clad in Orange or Maroon, aren’t going Big Ten. Not now. Not ever. Colorado and the Kansas schools aren’t going. (Same.) Even if Mizzou and Nebraska go north, and maybe Colorado goes west (I have strong doubts on that one), the majority of a big-time BCS conference remains. The Big 12 could easily function as a 9- or 10-team league for a time, missing out only on a league title game. And, looking at the population picture, the growth is coming and will continue to come in the south and west — not in the Plains or the current Big Ten geographical area.
I disagree about a diminished Big 12
If Missouri leaves, taking much of the KC and STL markets with them, the Big 12 is already only marginally viable. If Colorado leaves in addition, this conference is beyond dead. There’s nothing that we could add that would adequately replace those two. Those two schools would take with them the largest Big 12 TV markets outside of Texas. If Nebraska leaves as well, that leaves us with UT, aggy, Tech, Baylor, OU, OSU, KU, KSU, and ISU. That’s not exactly a compelling lineup. It’s a lineup that will be shunned by TV networks, resulting in less money.
Less TV money isn’t a big deal for Texas, but it could sink athletic departments in ISU, KSU, and Baylor. There’s a good chance that they could no longer afford to keep all the other sports they have now. The end of the conference would come very shortly.
If MU and CU leave, we seriously need to find or create a new home. The Big 12 will be dead and rigor mortis would be setting in soon.
Agree Wholeheartedly
First of all, the most teams the Big XII conference would lose is 3. From most likely to least likely that would be Mizzou to the Big X (a lock if invited), Colorado to Pac 10 (a virtual lock if invited), and Nebraska – who seem to be puffing their chest just because they won some football games last year. I feel they would be less than 50-50 to leave, and this is all a ploy to try to get a bigger piece of the Big XII pie. In their defense, it must be tough going from the king of the conference, to a bunch of farmers hoping Texas throws them a few crumbs.
From a conference perspective – Colorado´s departure is a giant yawn. Mizzou would be a hit, and Nebraska a larger blow. But I just don´t see why we wouldn´t replace them with TCU, Utah, and BYU, and just simply leaving the north as the 3 new teams + 3 old teams and the Big XII south untouched. At least on the field – I think the teams would be stronger. Don´t see much impact on market – with a possibility that it would be stronger if TCU increases interest in Dallas. I would hope any damage TCU does to Big XII recruiting would hit OU harder than us.
The markets are pillaged in that scenario
I don’t think TCU adds much, if anything to the conference. Every TCU alum I know watches UT when it’s on television, and the school sold out one game in a 50k seat stadium last year IIRC.
Salt Lake is the 31st overall market compared to Denver at 16 and St. Louis at 21. The population footprint of the conference also drops significantly. And we start to incur the geography problem many are so concerned about.
proud to swim home
by learned hand on May 22, 2010 11:02 AM CDT up reply actions
Guy I worked with for 8 years
is a TCU alum . . . and the second-biggest UT fan I know (other than BON contributors).
When talking population numbers (not always a direct translation to TV markets), the state of Texas goes 4-7-8-15-17-22 (Houston, San Antonio, Dallas, Austin, Fort Worth and El Paso) . . . Oklahoma City is 31, Tulsa 46 . . . Denver 24, Colorado Springs 48 . . . Kansas City 35, St. Louis 52 . . . Omaha 40 . . . Wichita 51.
Among potential Big 12 target markets (I’m not saying these are likely) that aren’t too far removed geographically . . . Memphis is 19, Tucson 32, Albuquerque 34.
But is St. Louis a Big XII Market anyway?
I used to live near and to me they seem like St. Louis Cardinal or bust kind of town. They identify more with rivalries with their northern neighbor of Illinois. Largest rival – Cubs in Chicago – and care every bit as much to beat the Illini as KSU etc in both basketball and football. Schedule the Illini every year in both bball, and football.
Here's a question, though
I think we all agree that if 2-3 teams leave the Big 12, it can only reconstitute marginally, at very very best equaling what it is now and more likely adding teams that make the conference less of a TV power than it was before the defections.
The question is what impact that has on Texas. The obvious response is to say the Big 12’s done in that case, and Texas moves on to seek greener pastures.
I think we at least have to ask, however, whether it necessarily has to play out that way. In particular, what’s driving conference expansion right now? TV money. So yes, one possible (fair to say likely) outcome is that Texas joins one of the remaining big conferences. This neatly solves the “weaker Big 12 = no big TV deal” problem. At the same time, however, it is not a move without its own price. A move to the Pac 10 adds a host of inconveniences — time zone and travel and expense-related. Likewise, a move to the Big 10 puts us in a gawdawful baseball conference, isolates us from the rest of our entire conference mates, forces us to go in on their terms, etc. Moving to the SEC has its own litany of costs which we’ve discussed many times over.
In other words, Texas is making a move that it really wouldn’t make if the status quo could continue, and is primarily doing so as a participant in a game of “chase the TV dollars.” That begs a few questions:
1) How badly does Texas want $20 million instead of $12 million in TV revenue? That’s a big chunk of change, but before we say it’s a no-brainer we at least have to acknowledge what we’re giving up to go chase it.
2) All things considered, would Texas rather have its own network? I think that if it was considered a viable possibility, they very much would.
Given all that, then, the question is how problematic a reconstituted Big 12 that’s only 85% as strong in TV markets really is to Texas. For one thing, there are obvious, tangible benefits to maintaining a more regional conference. Second, there are obvious, tangible benefits to maintaining a conference of which you hold enormous influence. And third, the B+ version of the Big 12 North is not the same concern to you if you know you’re headed to the Lonestar Network sometime soon; in fact, it’s at least plausible that it could wind up being a net benefit, through that lens.
My instinct is the same as everyone else’s in thinking that if CU, NU, and MU all jump overboard, the ship’s probably sunk and Texas eventually winds up securing its place among one of the new superconferences (which is what those three bailing would represent). But there are circumstances under which it’s possible that Texas would consider staying put amidst a different version of the Big 12, even if that new version was comprised of teams that couldn’t help land a big TV deal. It is at least possible that this represents what we might call the “quasi-independent” option, in which Texas happily enjoys the benefits of its current regional conference (and all that that means), while using its status as the enormous fish in the small-ish pond to head forward with its TV network.
Ah, hypotheticals. How we love thee.
You ain't hurt...
It occurs to me that conference reshuffling sometimes produces surprises
For example:
1. Would TCU be anything like a Top 10 team if the SWC had stayed intact?
2. Would UH be able to put up 8- and 9-win seasons as an SWC member?
3. Would Rutgers have achieved the success it has the last few seasons had Miami, BC and Va. Tech not left the Big East?
4. Would anybody even have heard of Boise State if Utah, BYU, Air Force and all the others hadn’t left the WAC to form the Mountain West?
My point is that the won-loss record defines success — at least in the public and media eye — as much as the quality of the opposition. Put another way, is a 13-0 Texas (with TCU, Utah and BYU on last year’s schedule instead of Nebraska, Missouri and Colorado) excluded from the MNC game?
Very true
And population shifts in the country, over a long enough period of time, have consequences that are difficult to foresee, as well. There’s lots and lots about this that makes it difficult to decide what to do, because it’s hard to know what the “best” option really is, in many ways.
You ain't hurt...
Peter, a question;
if Nebraska, Colorado and Missouri were all to leave, would Oklahoma and Texas (seeing as they already receive an unequal share of revenue) be left as the de facto kingpins? The reason I ask is this; in losing Nebraska, Colorado and Missouri, the Big XII will have lost one of it’s three “brands”, one of its largest cities and its 2nd largest state. Would schools like UT and OU hold enough power to a)bring in the replacements of their choice (one would imagine Utah would be near the top of the list) and/or b)force out a member or two (Baylor & ISU being prime candidates) in order to reduce the split of the demographic take? If the pie were only split 8 ways, a reduced pot would still result in a larger take for schools like UT if they didn’t have to share with “dead weight”. While seemingly a fading trend, a 7-game conference schedule could allowUT and OU the chance to go out and play a Notre Dame-esque barnstorming type schedule, playing a couple patsies and two or three intersectinal “name” schools. Just a (likely flawed) thought.
Less memorable than Sam Okey's Hawkeye career.
by Kyle McCann't on May 22, 2010 10:17 PM CDT up reply actions
Not sure I understand what you're asking
Presumably, any school that came to the Big 12 would need a good reason to do so, beyond mighty Texas or OU passed along the invite. There needs to be something in it for them, as well.
You ain't hurt...
It was pretty convoluted (and likely "aided" by a Scotch Ale or two)
but I guess I was wondering if there is a feasible scenario in which the Big XII goes all the way back down to the Big 8 i.e. contract for its own good.
My thinking on this (and, like I said, it’s probably way off) is that since there would be a smaller revenue pool to draw from (assuming Missouri, Nebraska and Colorado all leave), it could be to the benefit of schools like UT to try and squeeze out “dead weight” i.e. a school like Baylor who takes far more away from the deal than they bring. In doing so it would allow the conference to keep an automatic BCS spot (no league with UT and OU is getting left out) and allow a maximization of revenue. Also, with those two giants left calling the shots, I could see them negotiating separate TV deals due to the fact they would now have 5 OOC games to schedule (read: headlining games like Ohio State, USC, Notre Dame, etc.). Did any of that make sense?
Less memorable than Sam Okey's Hawkeye career.
by Kyle McCann't on May 23, 2010 1:28 PM CDT up reply actions
Great Job PB
I was initally thinking if we bolted the Big 12 it would be for the Big 10. But you convinced me that it is a bad idea. The 2 great points that convinced me it is a bad idea -
1. Impact on Texas baseball
2. The paltry games played against Big X teams.
My suggestion – be a Notre Dame – independent for Football. Give some revenue to OU and tAM to get guaranteed OOC annual match ups.
How does independence work?
I’ve seen quite a few people suggest independence, but I have yet to see anyone spell out specifically how it would work.
So, asking with a motivation of curiosity rather that snark:
(1) What top-tier conference would possibly accept Texas as a member for all sports save football? Why would the Big 10, Pac 10 or SEC ever agree to this? Hell, even the MWC will probably b a BCS conference soon, and I don’t see what would be in it for them for a football-less Texas. Doesn’t football-only independence doom all of our other teams to an affiliation with a conference the quality of the C-USA?
(2) In years in which Texas doesn’t finish in the Top Two, how does Texas qualify for a BCS bowl? I don’t think it’s certain at all that Texas would receive the same concessions which Notre Dame, a traditional independent, has received in terms of automatically qualifying standards. (And I don’t think a “We’re Texas” answer suffices here. Remember that BCS schools from a system we’d be abandoning would be writing the rules.)
(3) Whether in football-only or total independence, how does scheduling work, particularly when sports enter conference play? I think, again, that advocates of independence, particularly for football, think a “We’re Texas” argument is enough and that any school anywhere will bend over backwards to play a tough OOC game against us in October or November. Though we’re certainly more attractive than the average school, we’re still not Notre Dame, and I fear that independence will lead to a disproportionate number of money games against Sun Belt schools in the second half of the season while other teams are making better impressions against better teams in conference play.
(4) I fear that advocates of independence downplay the potential backlash Texas could face, particularly if Texas independence leaves remaining members of the Big XII high and dry. I think a lot of people assume that A&M and OU would easily find homes in the SEC, but there is no guarantee at all that the SEC would expand, even if those schools are on the table (and especially if they’re on the table without Texas). It’s entirely foreseeable to me that our former conference foes, whom we would have abandoned to an inferior conference with rapidly diminishing revenues, would retaliate by not scheduling us. And this includes OU. There’s not guarantee that the RRS would continue if we leave the conference structure.
by Hopkins Horn on May 22, 2010 8:52 AM CDT up reply actions
Agree strongly with point number 4
I am hoping the Big XII continues to be a top tier conference – and I would not leave if it is beneficial to Texas. In addition, I dont see the departure of Nebraska, Mizzou, and Colorado as a death blow to the Big XII. Obviously Nebraska would hurt the most – and I think they are least likely to bolt due to their historical ties with OU, and a burgeoning rivalry with Texas. In addition, they do not bring much to the Big 10 in terms of market. A few Del Monte or Green Giant Corn commercials would be about it. Replacing these traitors with Utah, BYU, Utah, or TCU would probably upgrade the overall competitiveness of the Big XII and would bring some really proud and satisfied members to the conference.
My favor for independence assumes the Big XII is not the place, and this was not well stated. In this scenario -
1. We take the nations leading brand to the nation in Football.
2. We join the Pac 10 for all other conference sports
3. We give the Pac 10 a cut for “x” number of football games with Texas. Perhaps a 3 year cycle of [USC, UCLA, Washington State] [Oregon, Oregon St, Washington],[ASU, AU, Stanford]
I honestly think this would be a great revenue stream – but have no idea if it is “do-able”. The Irish do pull it off though – being an independent football team – a member of a powerful basketball conference – and some well established rivalries. I do sort of think if they can do it – we can do it.
Our football schedule in this scenario would be entertaining – but awful tough. I really am a fan of easy schedules designed specifically to get you into the BCS mess. What I could see:
2 Traditional rivalry games [OU, tAM]
3 "We may be in the Pac 10 someday " games
1 Dream Match Up with Notre Dame
5-6 Games with Texas Also Rans [Rice, Baylor, UTEP, UTSA, Houston, Sam Houston, etc]
"Geography isn't the main concern here ..."
I sure wish it were. Until now — or at least until the creation of the Big 12 — geography dictated heritage. Our greatest rivalries are either in our backyard or just across the state line. So I am encouraged when I read that Texas probably won’t make a move that sacrifices our annual contests against Oklahoma and A&M.
But nobody seems to be concerned about fans. When I went to UT, we could make a weekend of away games in Waco, Houston, Dallas — maybe even Lubbock or Fayetteville. I wondered about the impact on the fan base when we joined a conference that stretched as far north as Nebraska, but I’d say that the majority of Big 12 schools are still within a fairly comfortable orbit. Big 10? Makes no sense geographically, and consequently, as PB pointed out, we have no history with those schools. Pac 10, pretty much the same.
I’d like to hear more about your vision of what a Lone Star Network might look like and how Texas can use our size, money and market strength to ensure that future conference configurations revolve around us, rather than render us a satellite of some distant star.
Quick answer...
…before I have to hit the road is that, if realignment starts to spin out of control in such a way that we’re having to look at Big XII rejects like TCU and SMU and UH as possible replacement schools in the name of geographic comfort, I sure as well would rather be associated with a better bunch of schools, even if the geography wasn’t quite as compact as some would prefer. I’d rather watch a game on TV against USC or Michigan than be able to drive to Robertson Stadium to watch us play UH.
by Hopkins Horn on May 22, 2010 9:25 AM CDT up reply actions
Quick retort
Then let’s push for more testosterone in scheduling non-con games against USC and Michigan. Beside the impact on fans who like to travel, there’s the impact on student-athletes spending more time on the road and — yes, let’s talk about this too — the environmental and financial impacts of flying the team to/from Ann Arbor vs. to/from Houston. Realignment spins out of control when geography goes from “not quite compact” to friggin’ ridiculous. Austin to State College: 1,325 miles.
Not to be snarky but, the solution is to schedule games in the exact location it's "ridiculous" to schedule games?
How many driving distance games does UT buy itself with a SWC redux and a compensating out of conference schedule vs a Pac 10/Big 10 membership and a Texas centric OOC schedule? How does UT improve its revenue profile in each scenario?
proud to swim home
by learned hand on May 22, 2010 10:37 AM CDT up reply actions
I'll admit I don't have the answers
.. to the revenue questions, and understand the concern about a Texas-centric conference schedule. But there is a big difference between a one-off, non-con, UT-UM football game compared with regular trips to Ann Arbor for football, baseball, basketball and all the other conference sports.
The travel aspect
is generally grossly overstated. Many non-revenue sports don’t even involve a traveling schedule like football and basketball but rather a meet-based style of competition; look at UT’s cross country schedule from last year. Golf, track, swimming, etc. are all very much the same i.e. there would be very little change regardless of UT’s conference affiliation. Furthermore, if UT were going to join the Big 10, for example, it would likely be doing so as part of a 3-team expansion at the least (16 looking more likely). What that means is that the Austin to State College, PA-type trips would not happen every other year, but likely every 4 or 5 years. When one factors in the major jump in revenue that the league in question offers…well, the travel “issue” doesn’t seem like much of an issue at all (at least for the school, fans are another thing entirely).
There may be genuine problems with such a jump for other reasons and I would have little to say to the contrary, but please stop invoking travel (a general plea, LH, as your posts are generally in line with my thinking).
Less memorable than Sam Okey's Hawkeye career.
by Kyle McCann't on May 22, 2010 10:29 PM CDT up reply actions
Many alumni travel to all the football games, no matter what. They know that it is just an expense every year and they don’t worry about it. These are older alumni so the impact of the current economy and how travel would be for younger alumni would be the question.
How many alumni travel to out-of-town basketball games? We barely sell out the arena for great conference games at home.
Will this really play in to a decision by the university?
by dimecoverage on May 24, 2010 9:42 AM CDT up reply actions
Into a decision by the university?
No. Money will dictate the university’s decisions. I have no illusions about that, just a romantic fondness for the old days. Geographic proximity is a relic, but one I will miss.
Point on meets taken, but..
there are still plenty of sports that play home and away — football, baseball, men’s and women’s basketball, softball, and volleyball. Right? And even if we take A&M and the Oklahoma schools with us to the Big 10, that still leaves plenty of Austin-to-Iowa City jaunts every year, to cite just the nearest example. That, plus the disregard for the traveling fans, doesn’t represent a gross overstatement of the travel case. Maybe I am making too much of it when all is said and done, so I’ll end with a plea that we not grossly understate it.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
